Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Percoco v United States.
In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a private citizen who has informal political or other influence over governmental decisionmaking owe a fiduciary duty to the general public such that he can be convicted of honest-services fraud?
The case was decided on May 11, 2023.
The Supreme Court held that a private citizen who has informal political or other influence over governmental decisionmaking can be convicted of honest-services fraud, but in this case, the jury instructions leading to Percoco’s conviction were insufficiently definite. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion of the Court.
The jury instruction in this case required the jury to determine whether Percoco had a “special relationship” with the government and had “dominated and controlled” government business. However, these concepts are too vague to allow ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch agreed with the majority but expressed concern over the vagueness of “honest-services fraud” more generally, regardless of what jury instruction might be provided.
The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Ver todos los episodios